Well, that whole shooting soldiers things is new. Historically liberals aren't any more threatening than a yappy dog that won't shut up. (and about as annoying).
Well, that's not really true.
Didn't people kill cops and attack soldiers in the 60s and 70s as some sort of protest against "The Man"? Penn & Teller proved PETA has been funding an arsonist for years. The Black Panthers were more on the side of Liberals than Conservatives. How about the conservatives who went to anti-war demonstrations within the last few years and were attacked due to their opinion? (We had video posted of this, anyone remember the site?)
I'm sure there are a lot more example of liberals being violent, but that's not where they cause the real damage.
The real damage comes from things like:
-Jane Fonda doing a photo op with the enemy and trash talking our troops.
-Dipshits who have ZERO understanding of human nature and think the world could be a utopia if we'd all just get along.
-Politicians and the media giving our enemies a boost in morale and hurting our troops' morale all for political posturing.
-The release of thousands of violent criminals who have been "refromed" only to see them kill more innocents.
This is NOT a defense of conservatives as they've got their own laundry list of ways they kill, but liberals have blood on their hands too whether from violence or from their "utopian policies".
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Liberals aren't dangerous? How about Pol Pot's commie prison?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Leisher wrote:This is NOT a defense of conservatives as they've got their own laundry list of ways they kill, but liberals have blood on their hands too whether from violence or from their "utopian policies".
I agree with you completely. But I'm not comparing them to conservatives, I'm comparing them to religious nuts. And religious nuts still have killed far more people overall. Plus they tend to want to get into your business just as much as the liberal nuts do.
EDIT: For clarity, I define "religious nut" as someone who is religious.
Edited By TPRJones on 1184268522
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
But I'm not comparing them to conservatives, I'm comparing them to religious nuts. And religious nuts still have killed far more people overall. Plus they tend to want to get into your business just as much as the liberal nuts do
You know, I think it'd be impossible to compare the numbers. The religious killings are easier to find, but for liberal killings the majority of their numbers would be the results of inaction or social policy. That'd be much harder to track.
EDIT: For clarity, I define "religious nut" as someone who is religious.
That is funny, although you know it's not fair. There's abig difference in someone simply believing in God and someone blowing up abortion clinics. Just like there's a big difference in someone supporting their local zoo and someone burning down car dealerships because they're hurting the environment.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Leisher wrote:You know, I think it'd be impossible to compare the numbers. The religious killings are easier to find, but for liberal killings the majority of their numbers would be the results of inaction or social policy. That'd be much harder to track.
True, in the long run. And in the long run liberals will kill more. But for now religion has a much longer history, and it'll be awhile before liberals catch up to the massive total religions have already racked up.
That is funny, although you know it's not fair. There's abig difference in someone simply believing in God and someone blowing up abortion clinics. Just like there's a big difference in someone supporting their local zoo and someone burning down car dealerships because they're hurting the environment.
Agreed. And while I do think liberal policies are much more dangerous than religions in the long run, in the short run the important difference is simple. The handbook for religions instruct the followers to kill people they disagree with on a variety of subjects, and the people that choose not to kill people are technically in violation and thus unusual. The handbook for liberals (while just as misguided) doesn't say to kill people, and the one's that do are thus unusual.
Not that I think every religious person I meet is going to kill me, but they're certainly supposed to and if the core of their belief system is tied to imaginary friends I don't trust them to not be crazy in other ways I haven't seen yet. I work with religious people and some are my friends, but I always keep an eye out for the day they snap and go kill a bunch of heathens as instructed by their Lord to go do.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Most "religious" folk lack even basic knowledge about their faith. Give me a week to brush up & I'd feel confident going toe-to-toe in a theological debate w\ any member of a dozen different religions on any topic you'd desire.
Most of them just listen to what the dude in the funny robe/hat says during their worship service. If you're worried about religious folk getting a spiritual telegram from their deity telling you to kill them, you need to extend that worry to everyone that places some motive/purpose/being higher than themselves. "God" just happens to be very conspicuous.
Edited By Malcolm on 1184337434
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
If I didn't hate the franchise so much, I'd sympathize.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I have yet to see a single Harry Potter movie or read a single book.
I highly doubt I ever will. I'm not poo-pooing the "hot thing", I just haven't had any interest in what I've seen of the series.
Call me when they make some "Encyclopedia Brown" movies.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
The fanaticism I've seen for Harry Potter reminds me of Scientology.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I hadn't read the books, and have been seeing the movies as they came out and have been entertained.
This means I don't need some shithead belting out major future plot points and saying "it is a book for kids and if u like it u should kill yourself."
There's no obsession, here. I've seen a shitload more geekdom from star wars fans.... their major advantage over HP is that there hasn't been any major plot development since Empire in 1980-whatever. If Empire came out today, we'd have the same "Vader is Luke's father and fuck you it's a sci-fi movie for kids" bullshit. These people need to be beaten with a stick.
edit - Hell, I think I'll make this a front page post, later.
Edited By GORDON on 1185212981
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
They forgot pr0n.
I've been on the Interweb how many years and THIS is the first bald chimp I've seen?
